-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(typegen): retain intersection types #389
Conversation
So this works surprisingly well. So much so, that I don't fully trust I didn't overlook something. Additionally I restructured the readme quite a bit.
Looking through the readme now, I feel like everything that's in "Advanced Configuration" should maybe go into a separate file. What do you think? |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #389 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 96.69% 96.72% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 32 32
Lines 1119 1130 +11
Branches 214 216 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 1082 1093 +11
Misses 37 37
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is awesome! I think we’re gonna immediately start using the to get rid of loads of bogus nulls. Will take a closer look at the docs and details over the next day or two. Let me know if you’re still working on this - one thing that occurs to me is it’d be good to have a slightly more high level test as well. i.e. no templated params, so it’s easy to see at a glance how this feature works. I’d be happy to push this to your branch if you’re not actively reshuffling stuff - let me know.
I like the readme updates - I am generally not a fan of splitting readme files unless there’s a full docusaurus site because it loses cmd-f without an adequate replacement. Also just to make the diff cleaner, what do you think about pushing in the unrelated readme changes first so it’s easy to look back at this PR and see what was added? |
Hey Misha, The docs for the new feature are here. Re tests: sure, have a go! Don't worry, I can keep my hands busy elsewhere. ;) |
2c857b9
to
fc68043
Compare
edit: forget what I said. I was being stupid. |
Sooo. Is this good to go? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🎉
This PR is based on the discussion here:
#386